In my case, Andy, I find it's not at all the representation of a womanly
form. I actually might respect the image more if she were fully nude and
modeling the womanly form. However, the element that troubles me (this
isn't a witch hunt, I'm just /sharing/ my perspective as a member of the
Forum) is that she's dressed up like a little girl and holding a toy
horse. Even if a pin-up is the objective, a child image has been
sexualized, regardless the age of the model. Pin-ups have always been
sexually suggestive images, and still are. And I actually think it's
great that Russ offers this service to people allowing them to create
gifts for their intimate partners or giving models an opportunity to
explore more daring images and expand their portfolio. But when you
dress the model up like a child in an intentionally sexual manner, I
feel a line has been crossed. In example, for the few guys who wrote
they thought the model's outfit was "cute", could you share what's cute
about it? Is it the frilly lace? Is it the little red buttons? Or, is
the outfit just a little too tight like she just grew out of it?
Perhaps, it's the toy horse she's holding between her legs? Russ, you
made the image, what's the formula here?
Andy wrote:
I think I had a totally opposite reaction to the photo than most. After reading much of the reviews and thinking further about my reaction, I have this to say. The human body is the most objectified subject of art. How many greek and roman statues do we see that simply show the body in its 'perfect' and 'idealized' form. The classical Greeks made High Art of the body in athletic form. That was what was desirable. Do you think everyone of the era looked like Venus de Milo? Probably not. What would have become of the statue and its reputation if Michelangelo put a fig leaf over the penis of David? Would it have even made a difference?
As for the picture in question, I have to ask the following questions to those who pan it as degrading porn. Would it have been different if the woman was 70? What would the statement of that picture been? I suspect that some of the same people would have extolled the virtues of a woman who was proud her life and yet still young at heart.
Someone already asked if it were a picture of a similarly clothed male. So my question to the same haters, What is the difference? What is the statement of the photographer? Is it that Men can be objectified as well? Is that a problem? (Still, remember the greeks?)
What would have happen if the picture submitted by Russ were a picture of a COMPLETELY naked woman lounging back on a chase in front of a 15 foot tall french door with the light cascading across her body and into the room? Would the same people be screaming porn? I think not or Venus de Milo would be porn.
What would have happened if the picture submitted by Russ were a picture of a non-explictly naked woman on the floor a row boat at sun set with the reelections glistening off of the water and her body? I think there would have been great fan fare for the capturing if a beautiful moment. I think that people would have commented on the quality of light, the composition, the processing of the details yet not over blowing the highlights.
Now, I ask you, what if Russ submitted the same picture without the naked person? Would we be having this discussion of what is appropriate for critique? I think, sadly, the answer is a resounding NO! like it or not, Russ' picture, in touching a nerve of few on this site, has truly shown that ART comes in all forms. It has shown that not everyone likes all ART! It has shown that one artist does not know what ALL ART is.
The violent reaction to a womanly figure is very surprising to me for this reason.
I think the failure is this: When compared to pictures of plant and trees and what seems to be regular subject of the photo forum audience, the pin-up as an art form has no familarity or mental benchmark. I suspect that if there were nudes and studio art or fashion art, then Russ' picture would have gone under the radar.
I propose to all, that if this forum is for the critique of the execution, then the haters have missed the point. If the point of this forum is to try and see what the artist is trying to say through their art and give critiques of the execution of the photograph towards those goals, again, I think many have missed the point.
I feel that technique without intent is not art. So, it is fine to practice, this is what studies of tulips and still lifes are for. But I believe that true art is the communication of the artist to the observer through their craft. Hopefully I am not mistaken, but this communication and the improvement of this communication is the goal of this for forum and hopefully nothing less.
_________________
Now, What did I see in the picture? A very healthy, happy woman of age with nubile curves that contrast with the juvenile and immature props. The contrast only strengthens the womanly forms behind and below the outfit. I am not really sure I like the studio feel or the back drop as they distract from the subject. If the intent was to emulate or make reference to Varga the pinup artist, I think special attention to the background is necessary as either there is a singular object in the background giving a point of reference (like a dressing table, etc) or none at all. This background is not close enough to either.
I will critique the others as I don't think it is fair to have one person get all of the attention of this forum.
Cheers,
The other Andy.
